Fixerguy's Common Sense

Musings on the “gay marriage” dispute and decision

My @Quora answer to How is it possible to find a right to gay marriage in the US constitution now when no such right… http://qr.ae/7c33nr

Lots of folks are talking about the recent SCOTUS decision which found that “gay marriage is a Right.”

Here I sit pondering this oddity and I noticed some things which alternately tickle my funny bone or enrage me.
The first, which I find frustratingly funny is the way which folks conveniently “remember” things, with zero regard for Fact, in order to comply with their world view. The Fact here is that gay marriage isn’t a right of any sort, because there isn’t any such thing, and that’s not what the justices found at all. What they actually decided is that the ability to legally form a marriage… any marriage… in order to have your State and Federal governments recognize your family and offer the protection which goes with marriage is a Right which carries lots of (+1800) State and Federal immunities and privileges. In this part of their decision I honestly don’t see how they could have reasonably found any other way.

It’s worth noting that this decision said only that States must allow all Citizens to be married as they choose, using the same set of rules applied to everyone. They said not one word anywhere which even implies that Churches must recognize or officiate any marriage, only that the States must… because Separation of Church and State.

Once that was settled the court went on to look at the fact that many States (38/50) allowed this Right to all Citizens, and that only a few didn’t. They also noted that the States which didn’t allow gays to marry had enacted that ban without any compelling State interest in evidence. The reason the States used for this ban was “Because we can, and it’s icky” which is never a Constitutionally valid reason. I honestly don’t see how they could reasonably have found any other way here either… especially in the harsh light of the actual words of Our 14th Amendment to Our Constitution.

As a Citizen who swore an Oath to “Protect the United States Constitution from ALL enemies foreign and domestic.” when I joined the Navy, I find it an outrage that it took 147 years for this perfectly reasonable law to be enforced. Yes, I get that society was different, but the actual words say what they say, and if our Constitution isn’t a set of absolute restrictions upon the powers of government over Citizens (which it is, and was intended to be) then we might as well use it for toilet paper.

Here’s those words:https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

See that bit in the middle?
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States

For me the attention getter is what’s not said: There’s zero exceptions to this absolute prohibition on States passing, or enforcing, laws which limit Citizens’ Rights under Our Fedearal Constitution. It says Citizens of the United States… as in ALL Citizens, in ALL States; It does NOT say “every Citizen except {insert your favorite group to oppress}”
In other words; States may give Citizens more Rights, Privileges and Immunities that the Federal Constitution and its Amendments do, but they may NEVER, EVER, give fewer Immunities or Rights than Our Federal Constitution does.

Now… There is a group of folks who claim that “This can’t possibly apply to Us because States Rights!” These same folks also object to what they call constructionisim.

Here’s my reply to those folks:
BULLSHIT! There’s no such thing as Constructionisim. Here’s why: This, and every legal, change to Our Constitution was made when either Congress, or the States, said “oops… we missed something here” and proposed an Amendment (change) to the Constitution. They looked at the change, and the exact language with all the repercussions of that language, tweaked the words, and passed it with a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress. Now, this is an insanely difficult feat in and of itself… as it damned well should be… but they did it. It’s also, under the restrictions, and actual words, of Our Constitution, the ONLY LEGAL WAY TO CHANGE OUR CONSTITUTION.
Then, and here’s the kicker… : Congress (our Board of Directors if you will) submitted the exact language they had approved to the States for Ratification… just the way any corporate Board of Directors would.

Here’s what Ratify means:http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/ratify-term.htmlRatify:
Approval or confirmation of a previous contract or other act that would not otherwise be binding in the absence of such approval. If an employer ratifies the unauthorized acts of an employee, those actions become binding on the employer. A person who is under the legal age to enter into a contract may ratify (and thereby adopt) the contract when he or she reaches majority, or may refuse to honor the contract without obligation.

Onward:
Then over 2/3 (28/37) of the several State Legislatures took a long hard look at the exact language, and restrictions, in the proposed Amendment and THEY EXPLICITLY AGREED TO BE BOUND BY IT.

So, this is in no way something that’s being “forced upon States.” It is language and restrictions which the States explicitly agreed to. Further, this is true of ALL the Amendments. Through this process of Ratification the States, jointly and severally, specifically and explicitly agreed to be bound by each of them… even (especially) the ones they now find inconvenient. Since the States, jointly and severally, agreed to be legally bound by each of these Amendments, there’s no “construction” necessary. Thus “Construction against the States is a made up, bullshit, concept used to evade and obfuscate that which the States agreed to be legally bound by. Oops.

The revisionists in this are those coming along, after they explicitly agreed to it, and trying to say “But, but, but, that’s not what we meant.” This is the exact same level of bullshit, evasion, and obfuscation, displayed by BP in their recent challenge to the Gulf Spill settlements.